The Majority is Always Wrong.

Month: April, 2016


I think this was written in 1986. And I think this one is deserving of the old “Spaghetti-Western Review”:

The Good: The author, Lapon, highlights the long history of barbaric attrocities called “therapies” and many other sugar-coated euphemisms by mainstream psychiatry and the mainstream media that never questions anything. He does an excellent job of exposing psychiatric crimes that most people just accept as normal or standard operating procedure or even efficacious. He also underscores the work of other authors such as John Loftus in exposing many of the connections between Nazi scientists/psychiatrists and American scientists/psychiatrists, emphasizing the fact that many Nazis were ferreted out of Nazi Germany and into the U.S. and other nations after WWII in order that they would avoid prosecution as war criminals, and also that the U.S. and other countries would benefit from having them and their often heinous experimental knowledge in working with live human beings. Lapon also rightfully criticizes Loftus for the way Loftus always seeks to cunningly mitigate the involvement of the Vatican in helping to ferret out these Nazis to safety (though no doubt Lapon has little or no idea of the size of the iceberg he is scratching there). Lapon also includes the transcripts of several phone calls he made over the years to certain prominent American psychiatrists with second or third-hand Nazified connections, and he probes them for whatever they may know; the main thrust of these questions was the psychiatric mass murders of mental patients in Nazi Germany.
If someone wanted to do research into monstrous pseudo-science of psychiatry, this book would be a great place to start.

The Bad: The guy’s apparently a one-horse operation, rather a blue-collar type guy, so whenever the American shrinks with Nazified connections that he called up simply denied things or else pulled an Ollie North (“I have no recollection”), there was not a great deal he could do; one lone guy can’t know all the facts and details behind every facet of a huge history of crimes, and thus some of these transcripts of phone calls did not really lead to much. But he did try and they are interesting to read.

The Ugly: It is clear from several short passages throughout that this author is still, even in these misandric days and in this misandric culture, under the delusion that “women and minorities” are an oppressed class. Huge “White Knight Syndrome” sirens going off here. So you basically have a guy that sees through the bullsh#t of one line of propaganda, but can’t see through another. Bummer.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ

ROMAN CATHOLICISM by Lorraine Boettner

A most excellent and comprehensive treatise exposing the false doctrine of Romanism. I have to give this my highest rating; although, be forewarned, the author is rather mild-mannered and his lukewarm tone probably reflects the century-and-a-half-plus of jesuitical infiltration of seminaries in the U.S. A book like this, written back in the 1800s, would contain protestant ire and righteous indignation. This author, writing in the early 1960s, remains staunchly even-keeled throughout, calm and deliberate, “objective.” For this reader, having read so many of those fiery (and prescient) protestant authors from the 1800s, the tone of this work comes off as namby-pamby.
But there are no mistakes in the author’s delineation of doctrine, and perhaps, given the pandemic of jesuitical ecumenism that has infected churches today in the U.S., a milder book like this might work better to help pull someone out of the cult of Romanism than those older, more ardent works.

Wait, I must mention this caveat: Nowhere does this author warn Christians of the dangers of churches in the U.S. all rushing, 99% tripping over themselves, to sign up for the ungodly State Incorporation and 501c3 civil contracts. It had been happening since the turn of the 20th century, but really began in earnest in 1954. He should have been wise to this danger. He was not.

But again, there are no mistakes in this author’s delineation of the doctrinal “mistakes” of Roman Catholicism. It’s just that, protestant authors/theologians of the 1800s, before Protestantism became historically moribund in the U.S., would not have called these “mistakes.” They would have, and did, call them much more damning things.

Rating: Δ Δ Δ Δ